It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Obama just lay out the rules of engagement for US military vs Civilans

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Aristotelian1




Well that's an easy fix; arm civilian police with federal military grade equipment.

In which case the premise of the OP makes no more sense than it does now.
Im merely making the point that the law isn't very effective. It's very easy to circumnavigate.

Edit: The law you put forth that is.
edit on 11-7-2016 by Aristotelian1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:32 PM
link   
However , in the case of Martial Law being declared the only laws that are not revocable is the Constitution. The rest can be "put on hold" until after the reason for the Martial Law being declared has been stated as officially cleared by the President.The President ,as Commander in Chief and highest ranking official of the military , would assume complete control of this country until then. Even the right for Congress to make laws is negated.
In case
Google definition:



military government involving the suspension of ordinary law.


Martial Law



Martial law is the imposition of the highest-ranking military officer as the military governor or as the head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government





The ability to suspend habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.


Just some FACTS for a change.
Sheesh



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Just some FACTS for a change.

Ok.
Your source:

In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.


edit on 7/11/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: khnum




As a Nation, we are steadfastly committed to complying with our obligations under the law of armed conflict, including those that address the protection of civilians, such as the fundamental principles of necessity, humanity, distinction, and proportionality.

The protection of civilians is fundamentally consistent with the effective, efficient, and decisive use of force in pursuit of U.S. national interests. Minimizing civilian casualties can further mission objectives; help maintain the support of partner governments and vulnerable populations, especially in the conduct of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations; and enhance the legitimacy and sustainability of U.S. operations critical to our national security. As a matter of policy, the United States therefore routinely imposes certain heightened policy standards that are more protective than the requirements of the law of armed conflict that relate to the protection of civilians.


Sounds like genocide to me.

Derp.


It says "national" NOT international interests. So unless the US is now global, it might appear to apply specifically to the US.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Thank you that answers a question I asked previously I once read your constitution actually at the National Archives it did discuss the suspension of habeus corpus,which Bush did under the Patriot Act all they have to do is call you a terrorist,and it did speak about the activation of the militia in times of invasion or rebellion.So if you have an insurrection it would seem all bets are off?



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum


which Bush did under the Patriot Act all they have to do is call you a terrort
False.
But as I pointed out, the provision which altered the Insurrection act (under the Bush admin) was removed in 2008.

edit on 7/11/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Don't worry, all this is saying is that terrorist organizations that store their weapons in schools and hospitals no longer have to fear the US.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: Gothmog

Thank you that answers a question I asked previously I once read your constitution actually at the National Archives it did discuss the suspension of habeus corpus,which Bush did under the Patriot Act all they have to do is call you a terrorist,and it did speak about the activation of the militia in times of invasion or rebellion.So if you have an insurrection it would seem all bets are off?

Yes. It could be. Also , if you read it (I am not trained in legal speak) but it does seem even the Constitution can be suspended.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Yes a quick check seems to suggest that is the case my concern and reason for this thread is I believe all hell will break loose at the Republican convention next week.



posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Yes. It could be. Also , if you read it (I am not trained in legal speak) but it does seem even the Constitution can be suspended.
It doesn't.



Yes. It could be. Also , if you read it (I am not trained in legal speak) but it does seem even the Constitution can be suspended.

BTW, did you see the cited source for your quote from Wikipedia?

edit on 7/11/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Phage

I don't know how long your adoration of the details and letter of the law will hold true in a rapidly changing dramatic, violent situation . . . particularly dynamics and situations staged and concocted deliberately to afford greater tyrannical control and trashing of the posse comitatus law.


Exactly there is a 5 step process to rebellion.
1.Pamphlets and internet/blog dissent/adversarial journalism.
2.reactive protests such as in Washington 2014
3.Escalation of protests pre-emptive rioting and the destruction of property
4.the phase we are at now law enforcement crackdown/retaliation
5.wide spread insurrection.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Only at ATS could take an order to try and do a better job at limiting civilian casualties


resulting from U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict or in the exercise of the Nation's inherent right of self-defense is based on our national interests, our values, and our legal obligations.
And turn it into something evil. It makes it clear it changes no laws, powers of military commanders, etc. The only things it orders is an annual report on civilian casualties, how the occurred and suggest ways to avoid them. Some how a yearly report has been turned into martial law.


I feel kind of bad for the Obama is going to take away our guns, destroy the country, make us communists, make us Muslims etc. crowd. Time is running out and people have more guns, more jobs and lower gas prices, and Obama is leaving office more popular than Reagan. That's gotta hurt.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: khnum



4.the phase we are at now law enforcement crackdown/retaliation


Seems we've been at step four more than once?
Seems things start getting done at this step. Things like civil rights laws. Things like bailing out of a stupid war. Too bad it has to get this far.


edit on 7/12/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Lets hope so



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: khnum

Since the Posse Comitatus act prohibits the use of federal military against US citizens I would say no. It would seem to address concerns about civilians affected by military actions overseas.

Now, if the Posse Comitatus act were to be repealed, that would be a different matter. But the President does not have the power to do that.


Yeah, cuz Obama is all about upholding the Constitution.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest




Yeah, cuz Obama is all about upholding the Constitution.

Posse Comitatus is not part of the Constitution.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: khnum

Since the Posse Comitatus act prohibits the use of federal military against US citizens I would say no. It would seem to address concerns about civilians affected by military actions overseas.

Now, if the Posse Comitatus act were to be repealed, that would be a different matter. But the President does not have the power to do that.


Ummm...yeah. I'm sure it would be just so hard for elected officials to just completely ignore the law.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders




I'm sure it would be just so hard for elected officials to just completely ignore the law.

Yeah. Pretty much.
www.businessinsider.com...



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Rules of engagement for US military vs civilians:

Case 1a: abroad

"Boss said shoot"

Case 2a: domestic

"Boss said shoot"



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: khnum




True but it does discuss operations outside areas of active hostility basically thats the whole planet US included. True but it does discuss operations outside areas of active hostility basically thats the whole planet US included.

Except that the law excludes the US. The law trumps an executive order.


"The Law' has been trampled by Obama's EO's in multiple instances. Most of the time the courts have done the right thing.







 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join